User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 24, 2014 at 6:17pm

    You can’t really remove it anyways. Just like how now people can opt out of it even though it’s officially there, if they “officially” remove it, I would “opt in” and say it anyways. ;)

    All of humanity is “under God”, really.

  • April 24, 2014 at 9:18am

    Shall we list all the modern news sources ignoring important stories due to bias? That YOU YOURSELF have LIVED THROUGH?

    How many books have been written during and after the Benghazi massacre, yet did not mention it? Did it thus not occur?

    It’s really foolish to pretend that these historians all wanted to — or even were allowed — to mention the incredibly embarrassing events (from the enemy religions’ points of view). Yet, enough of them did (like Josephus — why is he on your list??? Evidently you really have no idea what you’re talking about, though to be fair, it’s not like I’ve read the others) anyways.

    Keep on dredging up these tired old arguments; all you do is give those who know the truth more opportunities to show why enemies of that truth have to appeal to illogic to support their views, and opportunities to demonstrate why the Bible IS true. :)

    Also, I thought Tacitus WAS another of those who did… *checks* Yeah…

    http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

    Also to the whole “list” idea:

    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.php

  • April 24, 2014 at 8:48am

    I’m sure humans will refuse to continue to allow her the right, but rights are given by God, and it makes no sense to say she has NO right to do that. It’s all God’s creation. She does have a right, the question is whether it was wise to exercise it in that case.

    Of course those biased against God will say no. And many who love God will agree. But upon what sound basis? After all, almost every school in the country teaches from another “religion” or worldview, evolution, and virtually nobody complains (I mean teaching it as fact, in before the quote miners lol — it SHOULD be taught, but as debunked falsehood, or at best one belief that’s still out there). The hypocrisy stinks…

    If the one is okay, the other logically is as well. (And so forth and so on… a Muslim could put a Muslim message on it, etc.) Point being, if you cry foul when it isn’t YOUR view on the billboard, then you had better start crying foul at all the uses of state to promote your view.

    I don’t see evolutionists doing that.

    So… it seems that you REALLY believe it IS okay to use government resources to promote a particular view! So, as long as you do that, why not ours?

    The only valid ways to move forward from this are either expunge all endorsements of beliefs (yes, including ones that they OWN adherents claim are “science” but can’t soundly prove so) (but teach all of them without endorsement), or admit promoting a sound (true) one is okay.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 24, 2014 at 8:21am

    “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

    –Yeshua, as quoted in the Book of Matthew, chapter 5, verses 11 and 12

  • April 24, 2014 at 8:16am

    Prayer is speech directed to a non-human agency — ideally the One True God, but even if it’s directed at imaginary beings, it’s just talk, and my point here is that to say that a bunch of people talking to somebody else means you’re “coerced” or “excluded” should logically ALSO mean that after the meeting starts, and they start talking to OTHER HUMANS, then you should feel either coerced or excluded there too. Both are cases of SPEECH (which is protected…).

    So if they were to be consistent, we actually should ban all forms of communication. Period.

    And then everybody’s excluded… yeah… it’s utter nonsense…

  • April 24, 2014 at 8:11am

    Killing babies for the “false gods” of convenience and dehumanization (and… power generation?!) aren’t private and personal…

  • April 24, 2014 at 8:10am

    If I expressed how I feel about this here it would be incoherent and probably have to be deleted…

  • April 23, 2014 at 5:24pm

    One more reason to just call them Twitbook.

  • April 23, 2014 at 2:18am

    You can clearly see the boat right in the image… Nessie promoters would have to argue, I guess, that Nessie has a motorboat-shaped marking on its back lol.

  • April 23, 2014 at 2:08am

    “Why not use real facts instead of discredited imaginary ones?”

    Circular reasoning, since the opposite of the claim that the Bible is imaginary has been shown in many ways (and again, the data you’re using does not soundly support your conclusion; you’re relying on a dangerous fallacy to get from there to your goal). See my other posts, but again, stop trying to dodge the point. Either acknowledge the argument or show where there is any problem in it.

    “Oh gee”

    You’re being very flippant about a very serious subject. Murder is not something to be joked about.

    “then I guess the thousands of innocents executed by the Church will be glad to know that it was a “Mosaic law fallacy” that put a noose around their neck (in Salem) or at the stake (in Bamberg).”

    No, the “Mosaic Law fallacy” is the argument made by antibiblicists that because there’s something that sounds bad in the Mosaic law, it must be what the Bible as a whole meant to teach as the ideal way; what God really wanted — but the Bible as a whole clearly teaches that this isn’t the case.

    What got people killed is “degrees of atheism” — by the definition of doubt that the infinite, omniscient, omnipotent God of the causality proof will judge them for their selfish actions. This applies both to those who reject God’s revelations entirely to commit violence, and those who merely twist it.

    What has turned previously brutal societies into peaceful ones is Jesus. :)

  • April 23, 2014 at 2:07am

    “@Bonesiii: “You don’t seem to be engaging with the argument. This was DISOBEDIENCE against God’s Word.”

    On the contrary. I’m engaging using real facts and data, and you keep running back to a probable work of fiction and the basis for a revealed religion. What make’s the Bible accurate?”

    That’s an important question (although I’ve answered it so often on here, why do you need to ask again? Just read my other posts), but it’s still failing to acknowledge what you said you’re engaging with, or if not agree with, show why it wouldn’t be. Do you acknowledge that “religious” people murdering are disobeying God’s Word (in context)?

    If not, then soundly show why not.

    None of the “facts and data” you have yet shown is relevant to this question. In fact it really just demonstrates the hypocrisy of your argument — you are only able to appeal to widespread peacefulness to even seem to make a case precisely because Christianity reformed our society to make peace so widespread. In an atheistic society there’s really no special expectation that you have to be peaceful, so that appeal is more likely to be ignored by the populace.

    “We already know that the only Roman census in Palestine was conducted by Quirinius in 6AD – but Jesus was not born in the time of Quirinius’ governorship!”

    Changing the subject, but see:

    http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke

  • April 23, 2014 at 1:50am

    “I can go on and pull more religious wars and casualties”

    Again, this is a Hasty Generalization fallacy — the same fallacy behind racism, BTW.

    The argument is that because some religious people commit unjust violence, all religious people must be prone to commiting unjust violence. You figure it’s “safe” to not bother to actually check the moral constraints in their systems and discern between ones that are being disobeyed and ones that command murder. It’s like figuring it’s okay to assume all black people do something you saw one black person do, or whatever. It’s nothing but prejudice, plain and simple — and it’s wrong.

    It’s not enough to show that some people who believe in a god concept kill, and even some people CLAIMING to believe in the Christian God kill (people can lie… or even just distort what it teaches about WHAT he wants people to do, same as they could under atheism), and then insinuate that it’s somehow bad to accept the biblical God and his teachings on unselfish love toward all. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater — the ONLY belief that is soundly proven, and leads to genuine peace that has historically reformed countless societies.

    You’re arguing against a sound moral foundation because of partially unsound ones that are worse, in order to ask us to leap off into total foundationless-ness, which have been shown to be even worse — and just asking us to ignore that last bit. It really makes no sense.

  • April 23, 2014 at 1:39am

    “an atheist bank robber killing a cop trying to stop him would’ve murdered that cop for atheism?”

    You’re still going back to this “for atheism” strawman. It’s more “because of” atheism. The atheist bank robber believes that he will escape God’s punishment for what he did.

    “If a christian did that would he have murdered the cop for christianity”

    Again, I made clear that I was not talking about “for” as in to promote a cause, although that’s an interesting tangent — stop changing the subject. The question is about “because” — and no, since Christianity teaches not to murder, he could not do it because of (biblical, in-context) Christianity, but IN SPITE OF.

    In order to murder, you have to doubt at least a little that the God of the Bible will judge you for this action. The Bible says he will, so by definition you would have to doubt those parts of the Bible. Simple. Unlike atheism, biblical Christianity has something objective to judge actions against and declare them immoral.

    Let’s make this a simple yes/no question.

    Do you acknowledge, or do you not, that an atheist has no absolute moral constraints that derive soundly from the premise of atheism against murder?

    If you believe they DO, then how do you derive them (remember it has to be off of the premise of atheism, NOT things like society around you that are shared by all beliefs)?

  • April 22, 2014 at 2:17pm

    Loved the video, especially the timelapse elements combined with the motion (and flight!). Gives just a tiny picture of what things could look like to God, who isn’t bound by our rate of the passage of time. :D

  • April 22, 2014 at 12:38pm

    This isn’t the first time someone’s tried to throw this one at me on the Blaze, and ironically the same thing is true of you as was of them — you would have been far smarter to invoke the reference in Revelation where Jesus actually goes out and kills people! (But maybe you were afraid to because you know the answer’s obvious; those people were trying to kill God’s people… but more likely you haven’t actually studied the NT thoroughly anyways and you’re just pulling this off a quote-mining gutter-atheist site.)

    “Or “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22:18. This led to the murder of how many by the church?”

    Mosaic law fallacy was debunked two thousand years ago by Christ:

    Matthew 19:8
    He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

    The Mosaic law contained many things the people demanded that were not necessarily what God wanted. However, this is more likely a case of the nation agreeing to accept the punishments we all deserve, in a law-focused sense, as dealt with exhaustively in Romans and other NT letters.

    Second, the argument that some misunderstood this to mean that anybody SUSPECTED of sorcery was to be killed, therefore Bible = bad is obviously nonsensical.

    You also forget what sorcery actually meant — directly calling on the power of demons; pure evil. It didn’t mean a cute mouse-man with a pointy hat.

  • April 22, 2014 at 12:38pm

    19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

    So, the people Jesus is dividing you from are people who should love you, but want to hold a threat of death over your head to force you to go along with their worldview (against Jesus). Violence in this case might even be justifiable as self-defense! Yet notice Jesus does not urge such a thing, in this case (though he does in other situations when actually attacked; the buy a sword passage); instead he urges you to flee these situations. The sword to divide is cutting the psychological bonds that would make you want to stay in the situation and either be killed or kowtow to self-destroying rejection of Jesus (who is necessary for salvation).

  • April 22, 2014 at 12:37pm

    “Or the biblical references condoning violence. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus, at Matt. 10:34.”

    And here’s a classic example of why I repeatedly added “in context” (though your next is a far better argument). The sword Jesus refers to here is “to divide” — to cut bonds of loyalty to family and friends if those bonds are demanded by those individuals in opposition to loyalty to God and God’s people. In other words, violence is not what Jesus is talking about here. Even you should have seen the verses that come right after.

    35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

    And most people miss what the context leading up to this was!

    17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. [continued...]

  • April 22, 2014 at 12:19pm

    “I only gave one example. There are plenty more. The Inquisition”

    You don’t seem to be engaging with the argument. This was DISOBEDIENCE against God’s Word. For atheist regimes, it’s really just subjective — they can choose to murder, or choose not to. Since there’s no constraint against it, far more seem to do this than otherwise.

    BTW, things like the Inquisition frequently were imposed ON biblical Christians.

    IMO this sort of thing was inevitable; it’s part of the long struggle against entrenched violence. People who make this argument forget that the Inquisition and the like existed in cultures that were being turned slowly away, by Christianity, from ancient, far more brutal practices. They adopted many of these in. In other words, few places instantly snap from violent ancient pagan cultures to peaceful, biblical Christianity. That’s just not a realistic expectation.

    But over time, Christianity did incrementally reform society to the point that today you can appeal to popular society where peacefulness is now the tradition! Christianity turned the world on its head. And compared to atheism, Christianity’s reformative power is obviously far, far better; atheistic regimes today tend to rebel against even entrenched societal peacefulness, toward violence, in very few generations, as well as tyranny in general.

    Of course, this doesn’t prove Christianity true… but it’s still important to recognize.

  • April 22, 2014 at 5:50am

    God is under no moral obligation to only ever make fully freewilled creations. As an analogy, is it wrong to write a computer program, just because it won’t have freewill? No. But once God decided to make freewilled beings, then it makes sense to set things up in a way that enables them to form wrong conclusions.

    Also, we don’t really know enough about Satan or his fall to make that determination. How do you know he wasn’t able to somehow or another deceive himself a little anyways? We’re also not as powerful as he apparently was as an angel, etc. It’s a complicated subject, but the fact remains that whatever the situation for other beings, for humans living now, God doesn’t make it absolutely undeniable that he’s here (although another factor is, it’s hard to see how else other than unfakeable prophecies he would do that anyways; many atheists have admitted that even if they see a manifestation of God directly they wouldn’t believe).

  • April 22, 2014 at 5:43am

    “Your Christian God does not get to determine what a Muslim believes.”

    Strawman; the claim was not that God determines what a Muslim BELIEVES but whether the Muslim belief is ACCURATE. In fact the only reason he doesn’t decide what they believe in the first place is his principle of freewill; if not for that, he absolutely COULD force them to believe whatever he wanted to. (So in a sense, he is determining it in that he “foreknew” they would use their freewill to take that mistaken belief.)

    “And since all revealed religions are basically the same, why are you so concerned about what they believe or don’t believe?”

    Huh? How could they be basically the same? Clearly they are not. One is True, the others false (to varying extents). That one is soundly supported, the others baldly asserted or fallaciously supported (including evolution BTW).

    The second part of this quote repeats the strawman from above. If you mistook (IMO) IC for saying that, though, okay. But that’s not how I read it, and in any event not what I meant in my post. A Covenant requires mutual consent on both sides, and when it’s documented, we can know when someone fails the standards set forth. Objectively it is fact that this is the case with Muslims; they cannot be part of the covenant with Abraham because it was with God, and God gave commands that they violate, etc. Not really rocket science…

123 To page: Go